Multiple factors thwart the efforts to bring new technologies to patients suffering from cardiovascular disease. Regulatory barriers, less financial return on investment and government impediments interfere with innovation. However, if innovators can adapt and evolve to the flattening of the global healthcare setting, a silver lining may materialize

On average, hospitals implement only five of the 10 recommended practices for reducing 30-day readmission rates for patients with acute MI (AMI) or heart failure (HF), according to a study published online July 18 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. Researchers plan to build from this baseline paper to identify which practices help reduce rates, the lead author told Cardiovascular Business.

Welcome to the dog days of summer. The phrase suggests unhurried relaxation and unharried contemplation. We can use the breather, given what is on the horizon in healthcare.

Using transradial access during catheterizations rather than the femoral approach can save a hospital on average $275 per patient, according to a cost-benefit analysis. The study, based on 14 randomized controlled trials, found that radial access proved less costly than femoral for catheterizations, despite radials longer procedure time and higher failure rate.

As innovation within the healthcare industry booms, costs continue to soar. Physicians must now be asking themselves: how can we break that cycle? A study published online July 9 in the Archives of Internal Medicine offered a solution when it looked at how reducing drug-eluting stent (DES) use could lead to lower U.S. healthcare costs. In fact, researchers estimated that reducing DES use by 50 percent in low-risk patients could lower U.S. healthcare costs by $205 million per year.

The fee-for-service payment model has drawn fire in recent years for rewarding volume rather than value. The Relative Value Unit (RVU) that serves as a foundation for many physicians compensation also has landed in the cross hairs of critics who argue its use encourages doctors to perform more procedures, regardless of need. Cardiologists have fared relatively well under this system, but with the growing emphasis on patient-centered and quality care, this payment model likely will change. And so may compensation.

Sometimes the best-intentioned public policy decisions have unintended consequences. Fee-for-service may be a case in point.

There are many models and scopes of accountable care organizations (ACO). Addressing standardization obstacles and working toward clinical integration are just two of the challenges standing in the way of success.